1. The Corporation was directed by Mark Achbar and Jennifer Abbott in 2003.
2. The film focuses on the issues of corporations and their goal to make money at any cost.
3. The argument is made by interviews with various people and follows a clear flow of thoughts about the history and ‘crimes’ of corporations. There is not that much scientific evidence presented though there are various legal documents and regulations that are discussed in relation to the rights and practices of corporations. The film definitely has emotional appeal and grabs the viewer’s attention through its use of simple explanations of large issues and people are prone to listen when money is involved.
4. The film draws out many different sustainability problems including political, legal and behavioral issues.
5. The most compelling part of the film was relating corporations to plunderers. Pirates have a cultural connotation that, despite the vast number of movies casting them in an appealing light, shows them to be very short-sighted and harmful to the native inhabitants. Corporations do have a tendency to plunder land for resources without long term thoughts making the comparison viable. Another key point is showing that corporations have the same rights as a person but cannot be punished in the same manor. The movie states that they have no soul and no body to incarcerate. This poses a major issue, how do you control something without the ability to punish it for misbehavior? This system allows corruption which makes corporations even more difficult to control.
6. I was not convinced by the lack of opposing thought. Since it was a more political film than the other class documentaries, it had less science and more opinion. There was very little presented about what the other side thought. One quick line from Milton Friedman at the end of the movie does not suffice. The reluctance to explain opposing thought makes the viewer curious as to why they left it out. Also, it felt like a very weak argument to try to argue that corporations are even more evil because they helped out the Nazis. Corporations have helped out every different political organization that has appeared. Using social stigma and expected cultural reaction to further drive home a point felt extremely fake.
7. I think the film best addresses an adult liberal audience. It does not appeal to anyone with a more conservative view, except for the segment where the news is covered up. Conservative views support the constitutional rights which include free speech and that was clearly an attempt to prevent a news reporter from telling a story. Corporations have the right to make a profit, just as reporters are expected to report actual news and the government is supposed to protect the welfare of its people.
8. To enhance this film, the opposing arguments should have been presented. From the debate in class, people who would have argued against corporations were forced to research opposing arguments. Creating a well-informed opposition helps strengthen an opinion and also branches the movie’s viewer base out to people who may disagree with its primary concept.
9. The long term goal of the film would be the abolishment of corporations. However, a point of intervention can be in creating a system that can actually punish the corporation for using illegal means and methods of making a profit. Simply fining them has had no effect. Imprisoning CEOs has some validating qualities but still fails to make corporations comply with laws. If a corporation was forced to stop production for a period of time, or completely depending on the offense, this could actually be a large enough threat to keep them in check.
10. One topic that the movie raised that I have been interested in is the concept of branding. Many people can recognize the logo for many corporations and this is proven to be a very successful business strategy. It is why ‘Disney’ makes children’s films and Touchstone makes films for adult audiences. There is a connotation that goes with the name. This technique works from the scale of a large corporation down to a small boutique designer and with the invention of the internet, it has become easy for everyone with a blog to have their own unique image. People remember a logo and it helps build an identity in people’s mind. People also begin to have a relationship with it and build a sense of trust, or distrust. This ability for a corporation to have an image helps it become more human. We instill human characteristics in that logo which is why so many companies also have mascots. As consumers, we trust the M&Ms characters to give us the same reliable product every time and are more likely to buy that then the cheaper bargain brand because we can relate to it. http://www.brandingstrategyinsider.com/2008/03/branding-the-co.html Klingmann, Anna. Brandscapes: Architecture in the Experience Economy. MIT Press, 2007.
The brief mention in the film also caused me to look into Milton Friedman’s works. Having met his son and listened to him lecture, I respect his thoughts and philosophies. Though some argue that his works are outdated, abstract concepts on abstract principles cannot become dated. His works are still very controversial but I believe that one of the key things his writings do is they create the dialogue on topics that need to be debated. http://www.butler-bowdon.com/Milton-Friedman-Capitalism-And-Freedom
The Corporation 904
1. The Corporation was directed by Mark Achbar and Jennifer Abbott in 2003.
2. The film focuses on the issues of corporations and their goal to make money at any cost.
3. The argument is made by interviews with various people and follows a clear flow of thoughts about the history and ‘crimes’ of corporations. There is not that much scientific evidence presented though there are various legal documents and regulations that are discussed in relation to the rights and practices of corporations. The film definitely has emotional appeal and grabs the viewer’s attention through its use of simple explanations of large issues and people are prone to listen when money is involved.
4. The film draws out many different sustainability problems including political, legal and behavioral issues.
5. The most compelling part of the film was relating corporations to plunderers. Pirates have a cultural connotation that, despite the vast number of movies casting them in an appealing light, shows them to be very short-sighted and harmful to the native inhabitants. Corporations do have a tendency to plunder land for resources without long term thoughts making the comparison viable. Another key point is showing that corporations have the same rights as a person but cannot be punished in the same manor. The movie states that they have no soul and no body to incarcerate. This poses a major issue, how do you control something without the ability to punish it for misbehavior? This system allows corruption which makes corporations even more difficult to control.
6. I was not convinced by the lack of opposing thought. Since it was a more political film than the other class documentaries, it had less science and more opinion. There was very little presented about what the other side thought. One quick line from Milton Friedman at the end of the movie does not suffice. The reluctance to explain opposing thought makes the viewer curious as to why they left it out. Also, it felt like a very weak argument to try to argue that corporations are even more evil because they helped out the Nazis. Corporations have helped out every different political organization that has appeared. Using social stigma and expected cultural reaction to further drive home a point felt extremely fake.
7. I think the film best addresses an adult liberal audience. It does not appeal to anyone with a more conservative view, except for the segment where the news is covered up. Conservative views support the constitutional rights which include free speech and that was clearly an attempt to prevent a news reporter from telling a story. Corporations have the right to make a profit, just as reporters are expected to report actual news and the government is supposed to protect the welfare of its people.
8. To enhance this film, the opposing arguments should have been presented. From the debate in class, people who would have argued against corporations were forced to research opposing arguments. Creating a well-informed opposition helps strengthen an opinion and also branches the movie’s viewer base out to people who may disagree with its primary concept.
9. The long term goal of the film would be the abolishment of corporations. However, a point of intervention can be in creating a system that can actually punish the corporation for using illegal means and methods of making a profit. Simply fining them has had no effect. Imprisoning CEOs has some validating qualities but still fails to make corporations comply with laws. If a corporation was forced to stop production for a period of time, or completely depending on the offense, this could actually be a large enough threat to keep them in check.
10. One topic that the movie raised that I have been interested in is the concept of branding. Many people can recognize the logo for many corporations and this is proven to be a very successful business strategy. It is why ‘Disney’ makes children’s films and Touchstone makes films for adult audiences. There is a connotation that goes with the name. This technique works from the scale of a large corporation down to a small boutique designer and with the invention of the internet, it has become easy for everyone with a blog to have their own unique image. People remember a logo and it helps build an identity in people’s mind. People also begin to have a relationship with it and build a sense of trust, or distrust. This ability for a corporation to have an image helps it become more human. We instill human characteristics in that logo which is why so many companies also have mascots. As consumers, we trust the M&Ms characters to give us the same reliable product every time and are more likely to buy that then the cheaper bargain brand because we can relate to it.
http://www.brandingstrategyinsider.com/2008/03/branding-the-co.html
Klingmann, Anna. Brandscapes: Architecture in the Experience Economy. MIT Press, 2007.
The brief mention in the film also caused me to look into Milton Friedman’s works. Having met his son and listened to him lecture, I respect his thoughts and philosophies. Though some argue that his works are outdated, abstract concepts on abstract principles cannot become dated. His works are still very controversial but I believe that one of the key things his writings do is they create the dialogue on topics that need to be debated.
http://www.butler-bowdon.com/Milton-Friedman-Capitalism-And-Freedom